Democrats are affronted that Republicans have made ObamaCare a focus of this fall’s fiscal fights. They should get used to it.

Even if Democrats deflect efforts to defund or delay the law in coming weeks, the fight will go on. Republican opposition is for the long haul, and it should be.

Even as the exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance get up and running, Oba*ma*Care is still in play. It has a legitimacy problem. It had one before it passed, when it was kept afloat through gross special deals, and it has one still, when it is manifestly failing to live up to the president’s salesmanship on its behalf. There’s a reason that usually we don’t pass major social changes lacking popular support on party-line votes — it is a formula for conflict rather than consensus.

Having done the deed, Democrats now expect Republicans to salute smartly, accept “the law of the land” and suggest minor improvements that Democrats will, in their wisdom, decide whether or not to adopt.

In other words, they recommend the acquiescence of surrender.

If this were a consistent principle rather than opportunistic advice, Democrats would have been content to leave “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place and never would have agitated to repeal the Bush tax cuts, out of deference to duly constituted policy and law.

Nearly four years after ObamaCare passed, the coalition against it has expanded, not shrunk. The unions are now excoriating the law in terms that once would have been reserved for Republican floor speeches. In his filibuster, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz repeatedly quoted a letter from Teamsters leader Jim Hoffa attacking ObamaCare as a clear and present threat to the middle class. When House Republicans voted to delay the individual mandate a few weeks ago, 35 Democrats joined them; Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator from West Virginia, announced his support for a delay just last week.

Pew Research has found disapproval of the health-care law at an all-time high in its polling. CNN’s latest survey has disapproval at 57 percent and approval at 38. Health care, a core Democratic strength for decades, is becoming a liability. A New York Times poll found that more people disapprove of President Barack Obama on health care than approve by a 54-to-40 margin. Trust for Republicans and Democrats on health care is about even, according to the Pew poll.

The problems with the health law are invariably described by the president and his allies as “glitches,” or harmless technical snafus that no one should worry about. But the law suffers from basic design flaws beyond the question of whether the Obama administration can get its software to work. It depends on young, healthy people buying insurance even as it reduces their incentive to do so; it encourages employers to dump workers off their current insurance; it suppresses full-time work, through the employer mandate; in 10 years, the law still leaves 30 million people uninsured.

None of this makes for a stable, widely accepted new dispensation in American health care. On the right, ironically enough, it is Cruz and his band of fellow defunders who are the defeatists on the law’s medium-term prospects. They argue that unless it is stopped before Jan. 1, when subsidies begin to flow through the exchanges, it will be an unalterable part of the American landscape.

But at first only about 2 percent of people will receive subsidies, which are funneled through insurers rather than given to individuals directly. The subsidies themselves shouldn’t be enough to save ObamaCare if it is failing.
The law’s fate over the longer term matters because it is almost certain to survive the immediate confrontations over the so-called continued resolution and the debt ceiling. It will be determined over the course of the next two elections, when Republicans will continue to pound away — rightly — over the sighs of annoyed impatience of the left and the media. Resistance is not futile.

So is it fair to characterize allowing them to continue to receive an employer contribution as some sort of a sweetheart deal for Congress?

Or is it a logical and reasonable way of giving elected officials and public employees first-hand knowledge of coverage available on the exchange, while preserving their current levels of pay and benefits?

What about all the young people who are going to pay a lot more for this than they currently do? Why is there no importance placed on "preserving their current levels of pay and benefits?"

Because the political class are a bunch of scumbag mother ****ers? Or some other reason?

We could probably argue about them being 'exempt' from an absolute face value of how obamacare affects them so there isn't any point in it.

Let me rephrase to get to the point, add a stipulation to the cr that congress and their staffers be on obamacare exchanges with the same subsidy income levels as the general public.

He know exactly what you are talking about as far as them being exempt. I have a sneaking suspension cos was on a debate team in school. I rarely agree with him but he has grown on me. He has a wit about him and is skilled in the art of debate. He often is defending a view I disagree with but just as often he is ****ing with someone on the other side of his political outlook~

__________________The Trump campaign and Black Lives Matter movement are perfect for each other. Both sides filled with easily led and angry nitwits convinced they are victims~

It's going to be repealed. It's just a matter of when. A partisan reform like this that has no oppositional buy-in has no place in a functioning government. Which is why our government is no longer functioning. When history looks back on this, it will be Obama who will own this shut down due to that context.

__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." -Ronald Reagan

It's going to be repealed. It's just a matter of when. A partisan reform like this that has no oppositional buy-in has no place in a functioning government. Which is why our government is no longer functioning. When history looks back on this, it will be Obama who will own this shut down due to that context.

There is not a chance in hell that it gets repealed. By the time we get to 2016, millions of people who could not get insurance will be insured. The GOP is not going to be able to campaign on taking their health care coverage away. There will be a sob story every hour about soandso from X state who had Y condition and needs their Obamacare to live.

Why do you think the tea party is so freaked out about trying to win a completely unwinnable battle now? They know that as soon as its in place and people are insured, that they will not tolerate any politician trying to get rid of it. Hell, Cruz basically admitted it point-blank a couple weeks ago, he thinks that the people will "become addicted" to Obamacare and then they will never get rid of it.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

There is not a chance in hell that it gets repealed. By the time we get to 2016, millions of people who could not get insurance will be insured. The GOP is not going to be able to campaign on taking their health care coverage away. There will be a sob story every hour about soandso from X state who had Y condition and needs their Obamacare to live.

Why do you think the tea party is so freaked out about trying to win a completely unwinnable battle now? They know that as soon as its in place and people are insured, that they will not tolerate any politician trying to get rid of it. Hell, Cruz basically admitted it point-blank a couple weeks ago, he thinks that the people will "become addicted" to Obamacare and then they will never get rid of it.

Except the GOP doesn't have to "take away" anyone's insurance. They can simply repeal Obamacare. Period. That does not in any way invalidate the insurance a person is buying from a private insurer... even if they bought it through an "exchange." IF they roll back the expansion of Medicaid then maybe you would have something but I doubt they do. They'll simply repeal the mandate. It's not like this magical "Obamacare" law will ACTUALLY give us lower healthcare costs or even lower insurance costs so no one will likely even notice.

Except the GOP doesn't have to "take away" anyone's insurance. They can simply repeal Obamacare. Period. That does not in any way invalidate the insurance a person is buying from a private insurer... even if they bought it through an "exchange." IF they roll back the expansion of Medicaid then maybe you would have something but I doubt they do. They'll simply repeal the mandate. It's not like this magical "Obamacare" law will ACTUALLY give us lower healthcare costs or even lower insurance costs so no one will likely even notice.

The people are also overwhelmingly in favor of getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses that existed before the law. Do you think they would try to repeal that part as well?

The people are also overwhelmingly in favor of getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses that existed before the law. Do you think they would try to repeal that part as well?

Personally I would but most of the GOP has already stated that it would likely remain and the insurance industry would just have to deal with it. I want us out of the insurance racket entirely but whatever, that will likely remain.

And don;t counter with the claptrap about "without the mandate it is unsustainable then!!" It's ****ing unsustainable AS IT IS. Entirely moot point.